Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blackle.com

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blackle.com

Blackle.com (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The only thing clear about this search engine is that it's profitable for the creator. Data already in the article appear to show that the energy saving is an illusion. These facts suggest that blackle.com will not be around for the long haul, and is thus not encyclopedic. Only one newspaper article. The other sources don't refer to blackle.com itself, or are not independent of the creator. EdJohnston 12:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep, please! I was recently asked a question about a similar search engine (specifically, about whether it actually saved any energy, and I found the article to be quite helpful. I think there are bound to be people who want to find out if this sort of claim is true. Perhaps that makes an article more suitable for Snopes than for Wikipedia, but it's still useful. Elfbabe 23:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm the original poster from ecoIron, and I'm following the debate closely. There are several issues here, but a distinction should be made between whether (a) Blackle is suitable for everyone as a power saving measure and (b) Blackle is sutiable for everyone with a CRT monitor as a power saving measure. The latter is definitely true - no one disputes that a black screen is lower wattage than white on a CRT monitor - but the former is still open for debate. Personally, I think it is also true.
I don't know exactly how many hits Blackle is getting but it's a lot, hundreds of thousands a day. It's true it is a money making venture; it seems obvious that it's a cash cow that will be here forever. Note there are also many other sites just like it.
For sources, I don't exactly know what is required - it's been in the WSJ, Grist, Treehugger (now part of Discovery Communications), Inhabitat, ecoGeek, PC advisor, InfoWeek. Blackle gets 830,00 hits in Google, 'Black Google' gets about 350,000. MyTigers 8:59, 2 August 2007 (EST)
Articles that come up for deletion debate are discussed based on the Wikipedia deletion criteria here; the inherent merits (or otherwise) of an article subject are irrelevant. Google hits are often cited on these pages too - all they really prove though is that something exists, somewhere. By itself, a G-hit count can't establish notability, which follows policy laid out here. Hope this helps ;) EyeSereneTALK 14:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment above post restored (deleted by MyTigers, diff here)- please do not remove comments from an AfD debate! Thanks EyeSereneTALK 18:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I was editing and the entry got clobbered sorry MyTigers 18:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • No probs ;) Incidentally, now multiple, reliable sources are turning up for this article, I'll go with a keep on this one (providing they are written into the article to clearly establish notability). EyeSereneTALK 18:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Being profitable for the creator is not grounds for creation. (get rid of the article on the creator some call God perhaps??). The article has a referenced claim of an 18-88% saving in electricity and this is not an illusion. There are many other newspaper articles that could be added. Not having sources that reference directly to blackle.com is not a reason to dismiss a source. There is only one source that is linked to the creator. Alan Liefting 14:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The only possible claim to notability this subject has is the Sydney Morning Herald article ([1]), but this reads like an article on a trivial topic and only lends the subject temporary 'notability' at best. WP:N#Notability is not temporary. The link to headmedia.com is not really a reference, it's just a site that happens to link to the subject's website. The blogspot reference is a blog, and therefore does not meet the requirements of WP:V. The other two references do not mention the subject website. —gorgan_almighty 13:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC) I have changed my views to Weak Keep, see below. —gorgan_almighty 14:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

*Delete: Google hits aside, most of them seem to point to blogs - even the WSJ write-up is on their blog. It's a novel concept, but novelty doesn't equal notability. Sidatio 13:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep and source per gorgan_almighty's fantastic research. Good job, Gorgon. :-) Sidatio 15:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Do not Delete: Even if the actual power saving be a myth in this case, it might inspire people to actually find measures to save electricity. Atleast the aim of this site is not a myth. Other website publishers might find ways even for LCDs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.177.212.225 (talk • contribs)
Inspiring people to save electricity is not a reason to have an article on Wikipedia. Alan Liefting 14:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have updated the article with data to show that the power saving could be substantial. over a million [2] [3] google hits, 37 google news items at present (and being the talk of random people here in New Zealand??!!) must be in its favour. Is it the new internet phenomenon? See List of Internet phenomena. Give it a chance and it may outstrip some in this list perhaps. Alan Liefting 14:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Tentative delete. Right now there is only one reliable source that is actually about the subject in question. It would require a few more sources to meet reliability and notability standards.-Wafulz 14:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep. Meh.-Wafulz 13:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Roll into Parent: Blackle is the biggest site that uses the 'black web' concept, it's not the only one. I propose moving the info into a parent site to clear up the numerous misconceptions around the +/- of surfing a black web - saves energy, usability, hard on the eyes, equipment used, etc. Fact is, surfing a black web on a CRT monitor saves energy, no question about it, and there are a lot of CRTs still out there. These are important points and should be explained encyclopedically. MyTigers 10:08, 2 August 2007 (EST)
  • What parent article are you referring to? —gorgan_almighty 14:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The one that doesn't exist yet. But, if we went this route, I would suggest both 'Blackle' and 'Black Google' point to it. MyTigers 10:48, 2 August 2007 (EST)
  • Delete No notability. Merge Per MyTiger's sources below. Possibly a black web article could be used per MyTigers, but I doubt there would be much in the way of WP:RS, considering like has been said, it's mostly blogs. That or put it on Google's article. There's just nothing about it that makes itself noteworthy for an article. --L--- 14:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment here are some links for 'black web':
Web Page Readability:
http://hubel.sfasu.edu/research/web_read_lvs.html
http://hubel.sfasu.edu/research/AHNCUR.html
Monitor Penetration Rates By Country:
http://www.displaysearch.com/press/?id=781
MyTigers 10:36, 2 August 2007 (EST)
  • Weak Keep, on the strength of several reliable news articles giving significant coverage on the website (as required by WP:N):
The article desperately needs to be edited for NPOV, and should probably be cut down to a stub, but it is notable enough for inclusion per WP:N.
—gorgan_almighty 14:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - at least rename to Blackle search, as per google search. Onnaghar (Speak.work?) 14:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • weak keep per Gorgan's sources, our best way of determining notability. Whether the site is profitable for its creators is irrelevant to the discussion. — brighterorange (talk) 15:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, if sources are the issue, here are more sources:

MyTigers 18:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I came across The Telegraph reference when I was making my list above, but it can't be included as it only gives Blackle a passing mention. It does not "address the subject directly in detail" as required by WP:N. —gorgan_almighty 18:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, how many sources are necessary? Its up to 870,000 hits on google. MyTigers 19:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Google hits are irrelevant, but we've got enough sources here. Let's get the article cleaned up and properly sourced. (FYI: the Knoxville N-S and PC Advisor links go to blogs.) Sidatio 19:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Those two articles call themselves blogs, but they may still be admissible under WP:V Note-5, I'm not sure. I do, however, doubt the reliability of The Sun (UK) reference. It's a notable publication, but that doesn't make it reliable, and that article doesn't sound very reliable to me (for example the author of the article is "ONLINE REPORTER"). We also need to find something reliable that refutes Blackle's claims of powersaving. The powersaving claims are obviously dubious, and it wouldn't be an unbiased article unless we could point to references that say so. —gorgan_almighty 20:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. As much as it seems a little silly, it does seem notable. If more people wanted to roll it into a more general article that might be ok too, but I'm not sure there is anyone who really wants to do all that work... as evidenced by the general lack of quality of the Blackle article.Sewebster 20:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Not only has third-party publications written about Blackle, the Wikipedia article about Blackle has even been linked to by a Norwegian newspaper. I don't remember which. Punkmorten 22:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, the article is in pretty bad shape at the moment, but there are many sources out there. –sebi 08:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge I also think a parent entry should be created. Much of the discussion and criticism is not specific to Blackle.com only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.12.119.58 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 4 August 2007
  • Roll into parent Remove the text relating to generic black web and you are not left with much - therefore should be merged up into a 'Black Web' article.• nancy • 16:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm the one who started this article , n i don't know why this article should be deleted! When i heard about Blackle I searched Wikipedia just to realize that the page was deleted! I had to search several pages of the web just to find out what all the huge fuss was about Blackle. So i thought that i'd just create a Wiki as a one stop option for others interested about Blackle. Isn't that what Wiki is supposed to be? To just have all the answers u r looking for in just 1 webpage. This single criterion should be enough to NOT DELETE this page. I further wish if we could relocate it to Blackle once that page has been unlocked. Mac v 18:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Still think it should be Merged with a parent page called 'Color Schemes and Usability' or something like that; 'Blackle', 'Blackle.com', and Black Google' should redirect to this page. Also, can someone remove the deletion notice and unprotect the Blackle page, texasandroid was the original protector. Finally, can all critics review their criticism and comment if they have been incorporated into the article appropriately. MyTigers 18:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Given the media coverage, Blackle still deserves it's own article (per WP:N). Even if you created an article called 'Color Schemes and Usability', that would still be true. I did a massive clean-up on Friday evening, but most of my changes were lost when my computer crashed. I'm going to re-implement them now. —gorgan_almighty 09:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Color Schemes and Usability would not be an approp artilce name for Blackle since the object of the site is electricity reduction as an environmental measure. -- Alan Liefting talk 08:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. --PEAR (talk) 10:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I heard about Blackle from a friend and came here to learn more about it. If not for the wikipedia entry I may not have learned that Blackle's energy saving properties might be overhyped. I agree that the article needs improvement, but certainly not deletion. --Mr. Trustegious 22:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.